A. Defendant 1) The Defendant mistakenly killed the victim on a contingent basis.

However, the Defendant did not spread gasoline while leaving the victim who died on a motor vehicle.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged against the destruction of the body and the general automobile fire prevention. The court below erred by mistake of fact.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (30 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of the facts is based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court. In other words, in light of the circumstances acknowledged by the lower court: (a) the vehicle’s internal seat and steering chief part of the instant vehicle were burned the greatest number of parts; (b) the vehicle’s internal seat and steering part were without external shock change; and (c) the engine studs and lower part of the vehicle were not burned; (d) the engine studs were not burned; and (e) the engine studs did not contain any electrical characteristics other than those burning only part of the engine studs; and (e) the appraiser’s testimony at the lower court to the effect that the vehicle was not exposed to the studio electric equipment around the engine studs; (e) the degree of the vehicle’s omission in the studio; (e) the image and burning part of the vehicle’s image that damaged the vehicle and destroyed the vehicle’s engine, and the vehicle’s internal shock or combustion of the vehicle was considerably inflammable by the vehicle.